Bill C-319

An Act to amend the Old Age Security Act (amount of full pension)

This enactment amends the Old Age Security Act to increase the amount of the full pension to which all pensioners aged 65 or older are entitled by 10% and to raise the exemption for a person’s employment income or self-employed earnings that is taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500.

Financial Statement of Minister of Finance

[Rhéal Fortin, Bloc, Rivière-du-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for his speech. I would like his opinion on a certain budget matter. Nothing in this budget addresses the situation facing our seniors by trying to correct what was done before. In fact, the government created two classes of seniors: Those aged 65 to 75 and those 75 and over.

Bill C‑319, however, was studied, unanimously passed in committee and sent back to the House last March. It is awaiting a third reading, passage through the Senate and royal assent. I would like to know whether my colleague and his party plan to vote in favour of Bill C-319 so that it can be passed quickly.

Otherwise, if the Conservative Party were to form the next government, what position would it take on the situation of seniors?

[Luc Thériault, Bloc, Montcalm, QC]

Mr. Speaker, how can the member justify the fact that he voted in the House in favour of Bill C‑319, which gives seniors over the age of 65 an increase in their old age security pension, yet there is nothing to that effect in the budget? The budget talks about housing, and seniors also have difficulty finding affordable housing.

How can he justify the fact that his government, after voting in favour of the bill in the House, did not bother to eliminate this discrimination, this double standard for seniors, even though that was part of the budget expectations we presented to the minister? What was he waiting for?

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Madam Speaker, I heard my colleague praising the budget, but I would rather talk about the people who were completely overlooked in this budget. I would even say that it adds insult to injury.

Not only did the government still not budget for the increase in old age security for seniors aged 65 to 74, as urgently called for by the Bloc Québécois in a pre-budget request, not only did it fail to allocate funding for Bill C-319, but there is nothing for seniors.

No, I do not want to hear about measures for housing. These measures for housing are not aimed specifically at seniors. Seniors have specific requests. There is nothing in this budget for them. They have been overlooked. This only adds insult to injury.

[Olivier Surprenant]

Ultimately, all seniors should be able to benefit from this increase so that they don't find themselves in a precarious position by being penalized if they work. We understand that some seniors can no longer return to work, but we believe that all seniors should be covered by this reform, which was submitted, I believe, last year. That is why, in our opinion, the House of Commons should swiftly adopt Bill C‑319.

[Denis Trudel, Bloc, Longueuil—Saint-Hubert, QC]

All right.

You also asked that the government swiftly adopt Bill C‑319, which deals with increasing the Old Age Security pension for people aged 65 to 74. As we know, this pension was increased for people aged 75 and over, but we're told there's no need to do so for people aged 65 to 74. However, we at the Bloc Québécois think it is necessary. Can you explain why you think it would be important to do this swiftly?

[Gabriel Ste-Marie, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you very much, Minister.

On another front, the Bloc Québécois has made a further request, which is to avoid creating two classes of seniors. There was an increase in the Old Age Security pension for people aged 75 or over. We would like everyone 65 and over to also receive it. My colleague Ms. Andréanne Larouche introduced Bill C-319 for that purpose. It went through second reading and was adopted unanimously by a committee. All elected representatives on that committee, from every party, voted in favour of it.

Is the government currently considering Bill C-319 to increase the Old Age Security pension for those 65 and over?

Is the government likely to agree on what appears to be the unanimous view of legislators? Does it think it will be able to support the bill?

Opposition Motion—Carbon Tax

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to circle back to an issue that my colleague touched on in his speech, which is the vulnerable situation seniors are in. I would like to come back to it because, this morning, in the House, I had the honour of tabling the report from the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. At that committee, my colleague's party and all the parties in the room unanimously recognized that we need to increase old age security for seniors. This could actually put money back into seniors' wallets and pockets.

Does he support his colleagues on the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities who voted for Bill C-319?

Will he continue to pressure the Liberals, not just on the carbon tax, but to think about other solutions to help people in vulnerable situations, including seniors, by increasing old age security for all seniors and address this inequity between seniors aged 65 to 74 and those aged 75 and over?

Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, concerning Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act regarding amount of full pension, which I and all the members of my political party, the Bloc Québécois, are advocating for.

The committee has studied the bill and has decided to report it back to the House without amendment.

I sincerely thank the committee for its work and for allowing me to present the report this morning.

Seniors

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, members from all parties—Liberal, Conservative, NDP and Bloc—unanimously voted to do away with two classes of seniors when it comes to receiving old age security.

Members will recall that the government had decided to limit benefit increases to those aged 75 and over only. In committee, MPs from all parties voted to do away with this terrible idea. Now, the government just needs to give royal recommendation so that we can do away with these two classes of seniors.

Will the government give royal recommendation to Bill C‑319?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Thank you, Ms. Chabot.

I see no further.... The amendment has been moved. I gave latitude in some discussion. As chair, I must rule on admissibility, as dictated by House of Commons Procedure and Practice.

Bill C-319 seeks to amend the the Old Age Security Act by raising the exemption for a person's employment income or self-employed earnings that are taken into account in determining the amount of the guaranteed income supplement from $5,000 to $6,500. The amendment, as proposed by Ms. Zarrillo, attempts to increase further that amount to $13,000, which in turn would provide to some people access to a greater benefit than they would without the increased deduction, creating a new and distinct spending to be drawn from the treasury.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice Third Edition states the following on page 772:

Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation.

As precedent dictates to me as chair, in light of the advice I received, in my opinion and for the above mentioned reason, the amendment proposes to increase spending related to the old age security benefits, which imposes a charge on the public treasury to a level superior to the one already provided in the bill. Therefore, I rule the amendment inadmissible.

Seeing no further discussion, shall clause 1 carry?

(Clause 1 agreed to)

Shall clause 2 carry?

Mrs. Gray.

[Louise Chabot, Bloc, Thérèse-De Blainville, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would still like to make a few comments. So I'm going to talk while hearing myself talking.

It's not that I'm against people having as decent an income as possible, but I just want to remind you of the objective of Bill C‑319. The bill has two parts. The first is about increasing the old age security pension by 10% starting at age 65. We know that this increase was granted to people aged 75 and over. So that's the first objective. The other objective is to increase the amount of income that those who receive the guaranteed income supplement can earn from work without seeing that supplement reduced. That amount had previously gone from $3,500 to $5,000. We are asking in the bill that it be increased from $5,000 to $6,500.

I would remind you that the purpose of this bill is not to require people who receive an old age security pension to work. However, we need to enable those who wish to do so not to be penalized. Sometimes perfection is the enemy of the good.

You will recall that, during the testimony, Ms. Zarrillo asked witnesses if they had any amendments to propose to the bill. However, these witnesses were clear: They want the committee to support Bill C‑319 so that it can go through the steps in the House.

So I am going to vote against Ms. Zarrillo's amendment.

[Bonita Zarrillo, NDP, Port Moody—Coquitlam, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have an amendment to clause 1. The NDP believes that the limit on the income allowed before clawback should be raised in this bill. I will read my amendment.

It is that Bill C-319, in clause 1, be amended by replacing lines 17 to 21 on page 1 with the following:

(i) the lesser of $13,000 and the combined amount, and

(ii) if the combine amount is greater than $13,000, the lesser of $13,000 and half of the amount by which the combined amount exceeds $13,000,

I can give some explanation or an example of that if needed, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Are you politely telling me that you do not want to hear me twice? I get it.

I'm being told it's fine and that it's meeting the quality standards. If it does become an issue, get my attention.

Are we ready to begin clause-by-clause of Bill C-319?

(On clause 1)

Go ahead, Ms. Zarrillo.

[The Chair (Mr. Robert Morrissey (Egmont, Lib.)), Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

Committee members, I call the meeting to order. Welcome to meeting 102 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities.

Pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, October 18, 2023, the committee will begin the clause-by-clause consideration of Bill C-319, an act to amend the Old Age Security Act.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format pursuant to the Standing Orders. Members are attending in person and virtually by Zoom. You can choose to participate in the official language of your choice by using the translation services, with your headset in the room and, if you're appearing virtually, click on the world icon at the bottom of your Surface and choose the official language of your choice. I advise members to please be conscious of our translators and keep your earpiece away from the mic, as it causes popping, which can be harmful to the translators.

As a reminder as well, all comments should be directed through me, as chair. For those in the room, please raise your hand to be recognized. For those appearing virtually, use the “raise hand” icon and I will recognize you.

Finally, I would like to introduce Mr. Kevin Wagdin, director, old age security policy and legislation, from the Department of Employment and Social Development. Mr. Wagdin is present to answer questions you may have, as required. As well we have legislative counsel with us for any questions on the bill.

Madame Chabot, is Madame Larouche joining us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bobby Morrissey]

That's great. I'm glad. Does that mean it's approved? The money is spent. We go through this all the time.

Also, for the current study we're doing on Bill C-319, the cost is $17,250.

Do I have a motion for the adoption of those two budgets?

That has been moved by Mr. Collins.

Do I see agreement? If there's no agreement, you'll have to pay for your lunch.